Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Our genes have evolved for millions of years, and our current lifestyles (brought on by the Agricultural Revolution) represent a small fraction of that time, around ten thousand. The math says that our genome hasn't had time to adapt and we still have a hunter-gatherer biology.

That book has seriously influenced my perception of health and fitness. Another great one is The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth: The Surprising, Unbiased Truth About What You Should Eat and Why by Jonny Bowden.

Both of those books were introduced to me by the renowned strength coach Charles Poliquin. His book, The Poliquin Principles is another great read if you like to construct your own workouts.

The hunter-gather diet was also designed for a species that tended to die around age 40-45. Humans live twice that long now ... basically everything you do after age 40ish is treading into new territory in terms of the species since the *average* lifespan has skyrocketed since 1900.

So you may make dietary choices that worked fine when you only planned living for 40 years but suck if you plan on hitting 100 and still in good shape.

^An interesting point, but I'd say that the lower average back then wasn't due to nutritional choices. Disease, starvation, and death by hunting accidents/natural disasters/other dangerous natural circumstances made our ancestors die earlier. In terms of health, research tends to suggest these people were far better off. Some interesting studies have been done showing how Australian Aboriginals and North American Inuits are far healthier eating their ancestral diet than the modern one.

That's not to say paleolithic nutrition will guarantee you won't contract a disease, or die young. But it will most likely increase your odds.

That book has seriously influenced my perception of health and fitness. Another great one is The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth: The Surprising, Unbiased Truth About What You Should Eat and Why by Jonny Bowden.

Both of those books were introduced to me by the renowned strength coach Charles Poliquin. His book, The Poliquin Principles is another great read if you like to construct your own workouts.

Well, I read a book written by one of my lecturers (exercise physiologist and biomechanist with a special interest in nutrition), but it treads very much on the same ground. :P

Here's a link. It looks lame, but that's because he's a poor scientist, it's fully referenced and very interesting (it's evolutionary medicine, look at our past to understand our present)

edit: in my lecture notes it has Poliquin's name under 'there will always be cults'. For a new perspective on training in general, check this out as well. The cover looks really fucking lame, but he does get all his information from scientific papers/journals. I don't think anyone else has actually bothered compiling all the research that's out there into a book, suprisingly. He might be the first (he's been asked to write up a more up to date book recently but this one'll do for starters).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vexx

The hunter-gather diet was also designed for a species that tended to die around age 40-45. Humans live twice that long now ... basically everything you do after age 40ish is treading into new territory in terms of the species since the *average* lifespan has skyrocketed since 1900.

So you may make dietary choices that worked fine when you only planned living for 40 years but suck if you plan on hitting 100 and still in good shape.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

^An interesting point, but I'd say that the lower average back then wasn't due to nutritional choices. Disease, starvation, and death by hunting accidents/natural disasters/other dangerous natural circumstances made our ancestors die earlier. In terms of health, research tends to suggest these people were far better off. Some interesting studies have been done showing how Australian Aboriginals and North American Inuits are far healthier eating their ancestral diet than the modern one.

That's not to say paleolithic nutrition will guarantee you won't contract a disease, or die young. But it will most likely increase your odds.

Yeah, it's mainly modern medicine which distorts the average life expectancy argument, which makes the value unrelated to the actual health hunter-gatherers experienced for however long they lived. The average life expectancy in the paleolithic period was brought down hugely by the death of infants due to infection, and the fact they had predators that could kill them at any time.

In reality the number was far higher...around as high as it is now, and that's without medicine at all (no drugs, no being kept on a lifeline in old age). The real kicker is that hunter-gatherers lived to old age without chronic diseases which we seem to take as a given now.

Or so it's thought.

There's a very strong argument for this in the book I linked (just noticed it's out of stock, but you can try another sites).

Ok, I have another question. If my friend is 190lbs, his height is 5'10 and his body fat is 20%. How much carb and proteins should he eat everyday? His goal is to get big and built though. He's a vegetarian, and he's been taking protein powder. About 45g of protein intake everyday.

Ok, I have another question. If my friend is 190lbs, his height is 5'10 and his body fat is 20%. How much carb and proteins should he eat everyday? His goal is to get big and built though. He's a vegetarian, and he's been taking protein powder.

There's no exact answer... but if he's trying to add muscle he should try to eat a lot of protein with every meal. He should consume some simple carbohydrates after he works out, as that is when the body most needs glycogen stores to be replenished. Of course, that method works best when you have your insulin under control... which generally doesn't happen until you're sub 15% bodyfat. So, he can try cutting his bodyfat a bit first for better results in the long term, or he can just go ahead with it right now. He'll get results either way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kakashi

edit: in my lecture notes it has Poliquin's name under 'there will always be cults'.

LOL! Doesn't surprise me, Poliquinites are a cultish bunch. His routines/methods have given me amazing results (as a powerlifter, my primary interest when it comes to the gym) though, so perhaps he deserves the cult following!

Thanks for the recommendations, I will check out those books. BTW Mr. Hines seems to be an ultramarathoner. While I'm pretty much the opposite type of athlete, I find them fascinating. I wonder if you've ever read Born to Run by Christopher McDougall? It is a wonderful book, both entertaining and informative, about the Tarahumara tribe of Mexico and their amazing long distance running abilities.

I wonder if you've ever read Born to Run by Christopher McDougall? It is a wonderful book, both entertaining and informative, about the Tarahumara tribe of Mexico and their amazing long distance running abilities.

Seconding this. It's a great read and he has some really interesting things to say about running and physiology in general. There are a ridiculous number myths and misconceptions about long-distance running both as a form of exercise and as a competitive sport, and McDougall cuts straight through a great deal of them.

LOL! Doesn't surprise me, Poliquinites are a cultish bunch. His routines/methods have given me amazing results (as a powerlifter, my primary interest when it comes to the gym) though, so perhaps he deserves the cult following!

I don't know much about him, but if he can produce results he must be doing something right...also depends what your goal is with your fitness program. All I know about power training is that you should do 4-6 repititions, and while power training can be good for you, hypertrophy (bodybuilding) usually isn't because it involves isolating muscles (which prefer to work together), and can end up cause muscle imbalances.

Quote:

Thanks for the recommendations, I will check out those books. BTW Mr. Hines seems to be an ultramarathoner. While I'm pretty much the opposite type of athlete, I find them fascinating. I wonder if you've ever read Born to Run by Christopher McDougall? It is a wonderful book, both entertaining and informative, about the Tarahumara tribe of Mexico and their amazing long distance running abilities.

He is indeed.

Looks very interesting, will have to give it a read. I've read an article about this tribe once before I think.

I wasn't expressing distaste for a paleo diet theory, by the way. I was only pointing out that dietary choices that work *really* well for 40 to 50 years may not pan out if you plan on living to 100. Refer to the multiple studies where slightly underfeeding rats in their youth greatly enhanced their length and quality of life.

The machinery in the body isn't perfect and you have to take your genetic heritage into consideration. A diet that works great for, say, a Scandinavian may not be the one you might recommend for a Oglala Sioux thanks to 30,000 years of adapting to particular climates, energy expenditures, or resources.

Be VERY WARY of simple BMI calculations -- they are not meant for individuals but for statistical populations. Doctors who use that are ill-informed. Basically, if you work out more than the average schmuck you will show up as 'obese' when you are simply muscular. A more useful tool is measuring body fat ratios and *what kind* of fat (e.g. belly fat is generally a Bad Thing in the long term).

I'm 6'1" and 200lbs. Currently shooting for 190 at the same time I'm trying to trade fat for muscle. However, I'm shooting for 190 to take some load off of my feet and knees as I age in an attempt to avoid mechanical replacement way down the road.

Two years ago, I was 230lbs. I knocked off 30 pounds simply by switching to a low-carb diet (100-150gm/day) and a focus on complex carbs. In practical terms, I stopped drinking soda and cut back on rice as well as switch to brown rice. I dropped potatoes (occasional sweet potato). I never ate white bread much anyway, but any bread is now *whole* grain. When I'm hungry between meals, I simply have a hot tea or coffee and maybe a bit of protein. I exercise more (3 times a week, 2hrs each).

You don't want to eliminate carbs... you'll pass out in a bad way. but you want to ensure you aren't taking in energy you won't be immediately using. My son is a personal trainer and, frankly, really ripped. He eats quite a bit more carbs but he goes to the gym 3 times a week, he plays soccer 3-4 times a week, he works out when he's with clients.... (and yet manages to be a serious gamer and geek ).

Interesting you bring up the ethnic contribution as Coach Poliquin (the person I mentioned in my earlier post) has created a system called biosignature that takes into account your ethnic heritage as well as your hormonal issues/what foods set them out of whack. For better or worse, I can only handle vegetables, fruits and nuts without my blood sugar and insulin going wild.

Athlete gamers/geeks are win, I consider myself one as well, being a powerlifter, but I don't want to toot my own horn too much

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kakashi

I don't know much about him, but if he can produce results he must be doing something right...also depends what your goal is with your fitness program. All I know about power training is that you should do 4-6 repititions, and while power training can be good for you, hypertrophy (bodybuilding) usually isn't because it involves isolating muscles (which prefer to work together), and can end up cause muscle imbalances.

Yeah, I like to do a little bit of hypertrophy training (1 day for hypertrophy, 3 power/conditioning days per week), but it tends to overlook stabilizer muscles like the rotator cuff and trapezius for example, which explains why you see so many shoulder injuries.

I wasn't expressing distaste for a paleo diet theory, by the way. I was only pointing out that dietary choices that work *really* well for 40 to 50 years may not pan out if you plan on living to 100. Refer to the multiple studies where slightly underfeeding rats in their youth greatly enhanced their length and quality of life.

Why do you have to suddenly change diet at some arbitrary age?

Fasting has nothing to do with diet (in the sense of what you actually eat). Maybe fasting does help increase life expectancy in humans, but it's almost a seperate topic since we're talking about what the best foods are to consume when we're not fasting.

Quote:

The machinery in the body isn't perfect and you have to take your genetic heritage into consideration. A diet that works great for, say, a Scandinavian may not be the one you might recommend for a Oglala Sioux thanks to 30,000 years of adapting to particular climates, energy expenditures, or resources.

The geographical transitions you're talking about made very little difference genetically, because the way we transitioned to these new enviroments (rainforests, arid lands, arctic) were through cultural innovation. Our fundamental way of life never changed, and our food sources stayed very much the same.

The average individual living now is thought to be almost genetically identical to their ancestor 50, 000 years ago by current theory, but is receiving a very different lifestyle in terms of diet (hello modern prevalence of chronic diseases) and level of physical activity (hello obesity).

Epidmeological studies show these trends quite dramatically, and while I get your point that biochemical individuality should always taken into consideration if possible (usually a person knows when a food just doesn't agree with them), there has to be some kind of general diet which works. I think this is the most robust one to date.

At no time did I suggest such a thing. To repeat what I said, the dietary choices you make in life can be different depending on how long you want to live. That was an interpretation of studies where somewhat-underfeeding rats in their youth dramatically lengthened their productive lifespan.

Quote:

Fasting has nothing to do with diet (in the sense of what you actually eat). Maybe fasting does help increase life expectancy in humans, but it's almost a seperate topic since we're talking about what the best foods are to consume when we're not fasting.

And I didn't mention fasting at all.... I'll assume you were answering someone else?

Quote:

The geographical transitions you're talking about made very little difference genetically, because the way we transitioned to these new enviroments (rainforests, arid lands, arctic) were through cultural innovation. Our fundamental way of life never changed, and our food sources stayed very much the same.

Um, read up on Plains Indians being exposed to high carb diets and inactivity -- their exploding obesity rates are far outside the norm. Inuit have similar issues.

Quote:

The average individual living now is thought to be almost genetically identical to their ancestor 50, 000 years ago by current theory, but is receiving a very different lifestyle in terms of diet (hello modern prevalence of chronic diseases) and level of physical activity (hello obesity).

True... but there are local variations in how poorly population groups respond to those changes.

Quote:

Epidmeological studies show these trends quite dramatically, and while I get your point that biochemical individuality should always taken into consideration if possible (usually a person knows when a food just doesn't agree with them), there has to be some kind of general diet which works. I think this is the most robust one to date.

Not being argumentative but can you support that opinion/assertion? I think its a very interesting idea but "it sounds good" doesn't automatically fly. Any research links? I'm going to read the books that have been suggested.

I use to be a not fit kinda of guy, but now I work out 3 times a week, and the strength training program that I found at stronglifts .com is great because it's focus is on strength and not just looking strong but also being strong.

This is also the same program that is endorsed by olympic weight lifting coach, Glen Pendlay, who's coached numerous weight lifting champions...

At no time did I suggest such a thing. To repeat what I said, the dietary choices you make in life can be different depending on how long you want to live. That was an interpretation of studies where somewhat-underfeeding rats in their youth dramatically lengthened their productive lifespan.

That's basically what you're implying though, assuming people want to live as long as possible. That a diet might be good until a certain age, and then another might be adopted for longevity.

Otherwise I don't get what you're trying to say.

Quote:

And I didn't mention fasting at all.... I'll assume you were answering someone else?

You did mention fasting, but okay 'intermittent fasting'. The point I'm trying to make is that how often you eat is a topic worth considertion but it's probably unrelated to what you eat/shove down your mouth when the time comes.

Quote:

Um, read up on Plains Indians being exposed to high carb diets and inactivity -- their exploding obesity rates are far outside the norm. Inuit have similar issues.

True... but there are local variations in how poorly population groups respond to those changes.

Not being argumentative but can you support that opinion/assertion? I think its a very interesting idea but "it sounds good" doesn't automatically fly. Any research links? I'm going to read the books that have been suggested.

Vexx, you think I would argue with you if I couldn't. It's actually got a lot of good research behind it, the book has around 150 references to various studies. Here's one, but there is a lot to read if you're interested.

The studies you mentioned seem to contradict one of the studies I've read, that said I haven't read anywhere near all of them.

So since a new year will soon be upon us .. and in the interim many of us will be pigging out on festive treats and feasts .. I thought I'd bring up the topic of fitness and exercise!

So my fiance ran a half-marathon 2-3 months ago and has been bugging me about getting back into an exercise routine and eating healthier. I'm fairly confident in my health and appearance but will readily admit that I'm nowhere near the level of fitness I was even a few years ago.

Here's to a healthier start to the holidays and mayhap some new routines into the new year!

I have taken up indoor rock climbing and love it. Anyone else involved with this?

My nutrition beliefs were all outlined above! Nothing has changed (or will change) in that regard. If you want to dramatically increase your health in all parameters, eat like your ancient ancestors. Just ask my doctor who had me give him a long list of recommendations for his other patients!

I'm really bad at exercise and generally incredibly weak. That being said, I've fond it useful to get in the habit of doing at least a couple sets of diamond pushups (where you put your hands on top of each other) daily, they will work both arms and make you feel stronger and less lethargic.